Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 20, 2012 8:00pm-8:30pm PDT

8:00 pm
cohen is the dot dot this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for urgent -- thursday, july 19, 2012. i would like to remind all of us to turn off or silence our cell phones. or any other electronic devices that may sound off during the meeting. thank you. roll call -- commissioner moore -- commissioner borden -- just an announcement, i do not believe we are being broadcast at the moment -- oh, yes, we are. ok, never mind. we are being broadcast. the first category, items proposed for a continuance. item one is case never 2012.0206c for 2229 market street, proposed for continuance to august 2, 2012.
8:01 pm
i am not aware of any other item on your calendar for -- being proposed for a continuance. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini: move to continue item number 1 to august 2, 2012. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners, the motion on the floor is for a continuance of 2299 market street to august 2, 2012. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion passes unanimously.
8:02 pm
>> ok, there we go. thank you. ok, commissioners. continuing on with your calendar. you are now on your consent calendar items bid on items two and three make up the consent calendar. they are considered routine and would be acted upon by a single roll call vote of this commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests. in that event, the matter or matters would be removed from consent and would be considered as separate item. item two is case never 2012.0457c168-186 eddy street, approval for a previously approved conditional use authorization of a planned unit development. the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an
8:03 pm
additional three years for a previously approved project to demolish an existing service parking lot and construct a new 14-story, 130-foot all mixed use building containing approximately 153 affordable dwelling units, approximately 14,250 gross square feet of ground for commercial space. as part of services of as the rooftop and second floor open space, one loading space, and no off-street parking. the amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as a originally approved. item three is case number 2012.0509c for 100 california street. it is a request for the amendment to the conditions of approval for a previously approved of this allocation downtown project authorization. and actions regarding shadow impacts pursuant to planning
8:04 pm
code. specifically, the amendment proposes to extend the performance period for an additional three years for previously approved project to construct a six-story vertical addition containing approximately 78,000 square feet of office space to an existing 13-story office building, reaching a total height of approximately 267 feet, to add a ground-floor retail space measuring approximately 1500 square feet. the amendment proposes no changes to the design or intensity of the project as originally approved. commissioners, following public comment which would automatically removed these items from consent, these matters are before you for your consideration. commissioner wu: thank you. is there any public comment on these items? seeing none. commissioner moore? commissioner moore: i would like to move 100 california of
8:05 pm
consent. i have a couple of questions. it is probably in the verbiage of how it is described. >> commissioners, item three has been pulled off consent. commissioner sugaya: move approval. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners, the motion is for approval of item number two for 168-186 eddy street. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. passes unanimously. i assume we will take item 3 is the first item on regular calendar. thank you. commissioners, you are now on commission matters. item four is consideration of adoption. draft minutes from your regular meetings -- special and regular
8:06 pm
meeting of june 7 and your regular meeting of june 21, 2012. following public comment and any corrections and modifications in may have, i would ask that you adopt the draft amendments. commissioner wu: any public comment on item number four? seeing none, public, disclosed. commissioner sugaya: i have one correction to thursday, june 21. on page 3 under commissioner comments, my comment -- [laughs] the last paragraph beginning "the most important thing" and ending with "several thousand dollars" is not something that i said. >> ok, so the last paragraph? commissioner sugaya: yeah, under my comment. >> you want us to strike that? commissioner sugaya: yes. what i said was, i cannot attest to its accuracy because i was
8:07 pm
in a purple haze most of the time. [laughter] >> i do remember the purple haze. commissioner sugaya: i leave that up to you. >> ok, we will correct it rather than a strike it. thank you, commissioner. commissioner antonini: thank you. along those same lines, on thursday, june 7, comments that i was talking about -- >> special or regular meeting? commissioner antonini: this would be the draft minutes of the regular meeting. page three, and i am talking about problems at dolores park bank. in about the -- after the beginning of that paragraph on a less positive note, about the fourth line, i talk about my two-year-old even noticed the key to the xylophone -- actually, my two-year-old granddaughter. not my two-year-old. that implies it is my child. better to clarify. >> we want to make sure that the
8:08 pm
granddaughter is in there. gotcha. commissioner antonini: that is true. yeah, purple haze. >> well, we are old guys. >> thank you, commission. we will make those corrections. commissioner borden: and minor correction. thursday, june 7. under the 1:00 p.m. regular calendar, i do know the i call that specifically chris haugh in addition to thinking staff, so i wanted to put that on the record. >> ok. i am adding chris for borden. adding granddaughter for commissioner antonini. correcting the language regarding purple haze for commissioner sugaya. those are the corrections.
8:09 pm
>> the move to approve. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners. the motion on the floor is for approval of the draft minutes from the special and regular meetings, june 7, with corrections for the june 7 regular meeting and for the regular meeting of june 21 with corrections on the that said -- on that calendar. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. commissioner wu: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. passes unanimously. we're now on item 5 where the said committee will give you a briefing on the activities of the subcommittee on the commission secretary search. commissioner antonini: thank you. as chair of the secretary said
8:10 pm
committee search committee, i give you an overview of what has been going on, and will also entertain comments from commissioners moore and borden. we have met on june 13, june 19, and july 11, and we will meet again on a week from yesterday, july 25. among the things that we're working on is a draft of a letter to mickey callahan of dhr that we are requesting a level of classification for the position, and that is a letter that is being produced now and the draft will be available soon. we are considering 10 job interview questions which will actually be the subject of the closed section in -- closed session in the future. and then we have a ratings
8:11 pm
sheet that ranks performance dimensions. at the present time, there are 18 different parts of the speed of the commissioners are working to refine this into about six or seven, a little more manageable for the candidates and for those who would be reviewing them. and then, the language of the job description has been agreed upon by the subcommittee. it is available, linked to our calendar, for those of you who are able to obtain our calendars online. you can find the link to that job description. so that is an overview, and i would ask that commissioner borden and commissioner moore to weigh in, as well as the public on this process. >> commissioner antonini, this item was before hbc yesterday,
8:12 pm
and they had no problems with the job announcement as it currently exists. we're just waiting to see what happens with the reclassification of the position. commissioner antonini: thank you. commissioner borden: i wanted to provide a little more context to the letter. basically, we are undergoing the search process for commission secretary, as members of the public know. through the department of human resources, they said job classifications for positions but the barn with the human resources primarily deals with civil service positions. this obviously is not one, but they send the classifications. our joint subcommittee felt that the classification levels set for the commission secretary -- number one, it is not commensurate with the existing level that is set for our current commission secretary. it has limitations for anyone we can hire and detracts from hiring more advanced candidates. so we have put a letter into
8:13 pm
the department of human resources, asking for them to reconsider the reclassification that they had determined for this job posting. in the process, it will be that whenever they determine will be the classification and the job and salary range that we will able to publicize along with posting the position that we're considering today. and the job description basically is a description of the the the duties and the desirable skills we're hoping for for a new commission secretary. looking online right now, i do not see the link to the commission secretary materials, the i think it has been circulated among the commissioners here, the job description. if the commissioners of particular questions or concerns about the description, we will like to hear those today because it is our desire to move forward with posting this position before the month's end.
8:14 pm
that is kind of the action item number one. number two is if there is any comments on our concerns expressed with the department of human resources regarding the classification of the position, any feedback you like to provide would be useful as well. i recognize that if you do not have the information in front of you, it is a little difficult to consider. commissioner moore: just a step back. for those in the audience who do not know, secretary avery will be retiring within a few months. and for the purpose of helping find a replacement for her position, president fong assigned commissioners antonini, borden, and myself to be on the
8:15 pm
subcommittee. matsuta and two other commissioners are also on it. so the six of us have to decide if we are going forward with a joint secretary or with each of us to be allowed to have separate secretaries. as we were comparing the similarities and differences of what we do, there was a joint decision that we would go to the other, which now we wholeheartedly embrace because the two and a half months we have now spent together, the six of us, we realize how much, and the ground there is and how -- how much common ground there is. and we look at one commission and where to put resources. with great support from the department, we have worked out an extremely good system, also shared by commissioner avery in
8:16 pm
public meetings to discuss the issues with commissioner antonini and commissioner borden which were summarized. the announcement is ready to be released. we have crossed all the i's and all the t's. i would like to have one minor change filled in which was asked by the historic preservation yesterday. generally, we have very much work with existing templates and with existing procedural descriptions which we call from other departments, other commissions, and then went into a heart to heart which was essential and at the core of what both commissions do. i feel really good about the outcome. i think it really addresses the broadest responsibilities to the commission, to the public, to the department, and brings it into a level of transparency of mutual responsibility which i am very happy about. so we're looking for highly qualified candidates.
8:17 pm
california is an open playing field with redevelopment throughout the state in non- operation anymore. there should be a large number of qualified people. and we're looking just to capture that. and if we could get an update on the minor change, i would appreciate it. >> i would be happy to. i am with the planning department. at the historic preservation commission yesterday, there was a comment made that when you get the position over the section of the job announcement which describes the responsibilities of the planning commission and the historic preservation commission, the historic preservation commission felt that it was not accurate to say that the hpc simply advises the mayor, board, planning commission, and agencies on historic preservation. they wanted it spelled out that the do have approval authority on certain types of permits and entitlements. we will put to better some
8:18 pm
language that addresses that concern and submit it to the subcommittee again. commissioner wu: i want to thank the commissioners for their hard, hard work on this endeavor. i know that it is always tough to write a job description by committees. i trust that have done a great job. i wanted to ask secretary avery. i do not believe we have all the materials in front of us. is there a certain process we should be falling for getting those materials? what's actually, i apologize. my understanding is that all the material was linked to the item on calendar. according to commissioner borden, that is not the case. with that being said, you do not have anything before you. so we would need to recalendar this for your consideration next week. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner sugaya: without knowing too much about it, based
8:19 pm
on what commissioner borden said, i think we should strive -- or i do not know what the right term is, to keep the highest classification we can with the current classification or however i should say that. i think if we need reinforcement, then i am happy to do something about it. i do not know what, but -- >> commissioners, there is a draft letter that was circulated among the two presidents and the chairs of the subcommittee to ms. callahan, and i am happy to circulate that among all the commissioners so everyone can see what is being put forward. but, yes, the commissioners are asking that dhr reconsider the classification that they have determined the position should have to a classification equal
8:20 pm
to what i have or equivalent. and we will see what happens with that. commissioner wu: ok, thank you. commissioner moore: i appreciate your expressed support for that. we have been going back and forth because of difficult times. when a person takes on two commissions including the regular calendar of having to work late at night, i think it is essential to have somebody who can run with that type of an increased workload. so we're all very happy. i asked if it is appropriate to run this letter by the city attorney just to make sure that all verbiage is correct, there are several references where certain things we do have to fit certain legal requirements, and i want to make sure that that is properly expressed. it pertains particularly to record keeping and clarity,
8:21 pm
because in a changing environment of autonomy -- of electronic communication, we need to be sure that the new commission secretary would know some of the latest. but the verbiage itself is a suggestion on our part, if that would be able to be checked by the city attorney, i think we would recommend doing that. commissioner borden: picking up on what commissioner moore said about the management to commissions, one of the things we felt strongly about is, because this role as managing two commissions, that the higher level is justified. one of the reasons that we even consider doing it jointly is because we thought we would be able to get a seasoned person. if, for some reason, dhr does not consider our request, we may be coming back to you to reexamine that approach up one versus two commissions secretaries but obviously, it impacts the level of person that you can get with a lower stature, and it could impact of
8:22 pm
this commission and the other commission is adequately served. and the public especially, too. commissioner wu: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> well, thank you, commissioners. we will bring this back to you next week for your consideration of the job description that will be redistributed with the addition of hpc's comments from yesterday. commissioners, we can move forward on your calendar to any commissioner questions and/or comments. commissioner antonini: thank you. first of all, do not want to disappoint any of you, but you're watching planning ethics that will be held later today in another room. even though we were in this room yesterday, i believe there session begins at 5:00 p.m. today in another part of the building if i am not mistaken.
8:23 pm
i did want to congratulate commissioners wu and commissioner hillis you're going to be joining us. commissioner wu will continue on the planning commission, having been confirmed by the board of supervisors. commissioner hillis will join us after he is formally sworn in. i hope to be confirmed within the next couple of weeks, too, and be able to continue to contribute and to bring to the commission by years of experience. and these are going to be four very exciting years ahead of us, and i hope to be here to help. and i really appreciate having been able to meet with all of our city supervisors to talk about their issues and concerns, both district-wide and city- wide, and i think the lines of communication have to always remain open. and, as most of you know, i am always available, not only to our supervisors but to every member of the public, and my
8:24 pm
cell phone and home phone and e- mail and everything is easily accessible. if anybody ever has any questions, they should always directed them to me. i tried to get back as soon as i possibly can. finally, i appreciate the supervisors who spoke on my behalf in the last few days, and i also -- those who may have had concerns, i have always -- have always been appreciative and respectful, and i appreciate that ongoing process. thank you offered any support you have given me as i move forward in this process. thank you. commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner sugaya: a quick news item. i was just reading this in a publication called san francisco public press. an issue on growing smarter for the bay area. start with one headline that says -- can san francisco at 150,000 more people as the bay area is expected to grow by 2.1 million people by 2040.
8:25 pm
and there is the original plan, i take it, called plan they area, i guess. >> one bay area, yeah. commissioner sugaya: have we had a briefing on that or can we? >> sure. commissioner sugaya: it is interesting, because as as this region is the fastest growing in california but planners agree that sustainable growth can be achieved if new development is funneled to the right places. san francisco, oakland, san jose, and other cities along bart or rapid transit lines, which are the ideal place is the new people. the implications for san francisco -- it says, calls for san francisco to create 92,410 new housing units by 2014. ms. wu knows quite well what
8:26 pm
that means. a 14% increase of all new housing in the entire region, so they are putting a lot of emphasis on the cities that have denser population is at the moment. next is a headline that says -- cities resist regional plan to limit sprawl. now we have the city and others, like oakland, struggling with trying to increase some density to accommodate this kind of growth were trying to plan for using existing zoning and general plant policies to accommodate that growth. yet, we have cities outside of the area in what i guess you would call suburban america that are resisting the idea that there should be growth and increased density. it is a challenge. i can hand this around. i do not know if people have seen it. it is an interesting item, yeah.
8:27 pm
commissioner wu: thank you. commissioner moore: design the moment, in response to commissioner sugaya's comments, alameda, which is the suburban low density single-family housing and are now close to the bay region just a few weeks ago changed its laws to accept higher density housing. how high its density is is probably not like san francisco, but at least it is more than two story town houses. i think they're going into the four to six low-rise apartment vernacular, but that is a step in the right direction. i actually pushed the buzzer to ask director rahaim -- we received a letter, withdrawal of appeal, preliminary negative declaration on 376 castro, and i
8:28 pm
cannot figure out what that was or what that was supposed to be. >> there was an appeal. the project has not come to you yet. i believe it is the one at the corner of market and castro. right at the corner. the gas station at the northwest corner of market and castro. it has not come to you yet, but there has been an appeal. it would have come to you, but the appeal was withdrawn. so the project will still come to you. commissioner moore: ok. i cannot make sense of it. you put it in contact now. thank you. commissioner sugaya: just to put kalemeh debt into context, up to recently, they actually would not allow anything -- to put alameda into context, up until recently, there will not add anything bigger than a duplex. the had examples of multiple family housing including housing above retail that were not allowed. so this is quite a change, i think. commissioner antonini: on the
8:29 pm
same subject, i saw a news report, and i think they had said, as in 1979, there was a zoning change in alameda that had disallowed any multiple unit. it might have allowed the duplexes. it was a very restrictive. now, state law has mandated that they do their share of population and housing, accommodating population. in the state law -- i believe the council had voted to allow conformity to what the state was saying. and changing the zoning, although nothing according to the report had come through yet as far as the project was concerned, but they were allowed to rezone and change the 1979 zoning. commissioner borden: i am responding to that.